From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Vitale v. Town of Surfside Pension

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Oct 12, 1993
624 So. 2d 869 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

Opinion

No. 92-458.

October 12, 1993.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Dade County; Martin D. Kahn, Henry G. Ferro and Ursula Ungaro-Benages, Judges.

Klausner Cohen and Robert D. Klausner (Hollywood), for petitioner.

Cypen Cypen and Myles G. Cypen and Stephen H. Cypen, Miami Beach, for respondent.

Before HUBBART, FERGUSON and COPE, JJ.


Certiorari denied.

HUBBART and FERGUSON, JJ., concur.


I do not think this petition for writ of certiorari is procedurally barred. On the merits, I think it would be desirable if the definition of "disability retirement" contained in section 185.18, Florida Statutes (1991), applied to local law plans. However, paragraph 185.35(1)(f) allows a local law plan to incorporate disability benefits "as the municipality wishes." As I see it, this phraseology allows the Town of Surfside to adopt its own definition of "disability" which is at variance from the definition used in section 185.18. Accordingly, I join in the denial of certiorari.


Summaries of

Vitale v. Town of Surfside Pension

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Oct 12, 1993
624 So. 2d 869 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)
Case details for

Vitale v. Town of Surfside Pension

Case Details

Full title:FRANK VITALE, PETITIONER, v. TOWN OF SURFSIDE PENSION FUND, RESPONDENT

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Oct 12, 1993

Citations

624 So. 2d 869 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)